La Dee-vina Comedia

If the wildcard round idea comes in (and I truly hope it does not), it won't take long for someone to suggest a pre-wild card round to allow teams in positions 10 through to 13 to play each other to see which one gets to be the 10th placed team to then play in the wildcard round.

The model was different way back then, but essentially this is how Jim Stynes and Sean Wight started. Just based on the success of those two alone, I would say we have a fantastic record in this space.

I assume Champion Data.

If kicking efficiency stats are "locked away", I suspect it's not about making commentators look like experts* but keeping the best stuff for customers who are prepared to pay. *Like so many other things, you can put lipstick on a pig, etc.

Petracca and Lever will both be 30 years old by this time next year. Irrespective of anything else, I would have thought our next captain should have a longer playing career ahead of them. The only players I can see on our list who are in the right age group (say 23-27 years old now) and who might be suitable are Rivers (currently 23), Chandler (25) and Sparrow (25). The captain doesn't have to be the best player in the team, but does need to be good enough not to have people questioning whether their position in the team is secure. Also, there's much more to being a captain than being a great footballer. Most importantly (in my view) is whether other players are prepared to follow them. You can't be a leader without followers.

Gold Coast burned us for pace last time we played. I expect that's partly the reason behind Sharp's recall ahead of Laurie. (However, my own argument fails to explain why Windsor has been dropped.)

Plaudits to the medical, training and conditioning staff. That's an amazingly short list for this time of year.

I thought there was an AFL rule that if you were called Archer, Archie, or Fletcher you had to play for Essendon.

Would count for salary cap purposes. [Insert pseudo-humorous comment here].

Maybe. Which shaped ball are they using to practice goal kicking? 😁

Any player who has travelled to Queensland on their break should lose the right to complain about "too much travel" during the season! (Having said that, I'm also unaware of any of our players who have complained.)

Keep in mind that the 50m penalty evolved from the 15m penalty because coaches decided that giving away a 15m penalty was worth it, similar to a "professional foul". I suspect if we went back to the 15m penalty, the same would happen again. Furthermore, I suspect about half the 50m penalties given away likely result from breaches of the "stand" rule. I'd get rid of that rule altogether which would immediately remove many 50m penalties.

To be fair, Demonland is full of criticisms of Goodwin for not trying different things. It would appear he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

It's still "Bang! Bang, bang, bang." It's just that what you are hearing now are bubbles being burst.

Gawn 5. Langford 4. Fritsch 3. Pickett 2. Bowey 1. Turner PS: Langford is going to be a star.

Unlike the Collingwood game, I thought that the umpiring was pretty good yesterday, apart from a couple of dubious "insufficient intent" decisions. But that's such a silly, subjective rule that it's almost impossible to umpire.

I'd drop Viney or play him solely as a small forward. We were right in the game in the second quarter until Viney's indiscriminate kicking out of the centre, more than once, sucked the air out of our game. My concerns about Viney are not based on this game alone. His disposal has been an ongoing problem. His endeavour is not in question, which is why of the two options, I'd play him as a permanent small forward. I'd replace Viney on-ball with Langford. It's where Langford is going to end up, so let's get him in there now. Windsor can take Langford's position on the wing. For Viney to go forward, one of Sparrow, Chandler or Melksham will have to move. And if the brains trust think Sparrow, Chandler and Melksham all bring more than Viney, then Viney needs to go.

I suspect the argument about position is correct. A KPF is almost always trying to mark the ball. The KPD is often trying to stop his opponent from doing so. Consequently, the KPF should be taking more contested marks than a KPD.

Maybe because it has lighting suitable for night games to be shown on TV. The game is being broadcast on 7.

Me too. It doesn't necessarily follow that the sub should come from the five players listed on the bench, but if it does, Lindsay won't be the sub either. The five on the bench are van Rooyen, Windsor, Langdon, Howes and Rivers. I would expect Windsor or Howes to be sub from that group.

Another related question is...who is preferred in the backline: Turner or Petty? I prefer Turner.

I suspect it is relevant. So too, though, might be the amount of non-financial resources required to manage players such as stroking egos, keeping players "on the straight and narrow" and maintaining standards of professionalism.

Demonland straying into economic theory here with the Gini coefficient.

I'm not sure that Howes is the "obvious out" given Viney and Howes play very different roles. I do agree that Howes is one of the options, but I could also see Lindsay being "managed" (he looked tired last week) or Windsor being omitted on form.

It depends what you want. If you want the sugar hit of immediate wins, play Turner forward. If you want to win a Premiership, play Turner in the backline as he's going to be replacing one of May or Lever when they retire so best that he hones his defensive craft now.